Markus Sabadello
Markus Sabadello
I like this suggestion @wip-abramson
I think a current summary of this issue is: - `versionId` and `versionTime` are already listed in the spec as DID Parameters, and there are multiple DID methods out there...
Closing, since PR https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/119 has been merged, which addresses this issue.
I think what @mitfik is looking at are service endpoints like this: ``` { "service": [{ "id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#did-communication", "type": "did-communication", "recipientKeys" : [ "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#1" ], "serviceEndpoint": "https://agent.example.com/" }], "publicKeys": [{...
As discussed, this topic has been moved to DID Extensions: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/621
Closing, since as discussed this enhancement has been moved to extensions.
You're right. I think the spec should definitely **not** contain instructions on what "official" DID methods a client "must" support, that wouldn't be very decentralized :) But the spec could...
Looking at this older issuer.. The main DID spec has some thoughts on method governance: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec/#unique-did-method-names. Also, the [DID WG charter](https://www.w3.org/2019/09/did-wg-charter.html) says it will _"Establish a deterministic mapping between DID...
Closing, since there is agreement that no action is needed for this issue.
I think some of this has been resolved (e.g. the CBOR column has been removed, and there is also some language now on how DID methods will get accepted into...